Is Germany's reluctance over tanks a sign of trouble ahead?

Germany claims that a number of other Nato countries are also worried about providing advanced western tanks to Ukraine. But no mention of which countries might share the same concerns. If the Berlin government is right, what does this mean for Nato and for the wonderful unity which it has so far shown towards arming Ukraine to defend against the Russian invasion force. All the talk in Kyiv is now about removing Russian troops from Ukraine and from Russian-occupied Crimea. In other words, going on the offensive, or at least mounting counter-offensive operations to defeat Russia. If Germany agrees to allow Leopard 2 tanks to be sent to Ukraine would this overstep the line between helping Kyiv to defend itself or help Ukraine to defeat Russia? Ben Wallace, the British defence secretary, stated a few days ago that a tank was a defensive weapon. That's a pretty arguable point to make. A tank can be defensive. In other words it can be lined up in a defensive position to answer back when attacked by an enemy tank. Or it can counter-strike on the move when faced by an enemy armoured assault. In both these case, you could argue that a tank is being used in a defensive manner. But what if Kyiv was to plan a major assault on Russian positions in, say, the Donbas region, to try and drive them back over the border into Russia and used a massed array of tanks supplied by the West to do so? Of course Ukraine is entitled to do what it feels is necessary to defeat Russia in its attempt to regain full sovereignty of its territory. But if they use western tanks to do so, does that make a difference and how would it play in Moscow? Is this what Olaf Scholtz, German Chancellor, is worried about? And are other members of Nato of like mind? What doesn't help is the US failure to send Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine. The Pentagon says the only reason for this is because the gas-powered tank would be too difficult to maintain in Ukraine. Technically this is correct but on the other hand it provides a let-off for the US. I bet there are people in the Pentagon who are against sending Abrams tanks for all sorts of reasons, not all of them logistical. Abrams tanks are the best in the world and would destroy every Russian tank on the battlefield. They would change the face of the war. This is why Scholtz has said he would send Leopard 2s provided the US sent Abrams. He knows that the US is also sitting on the fence when it comes to tanks. But the US thinks it has a legitimate excuse. So Scholtz is not just prevaricating out of political cowardice (not wanting to ruin any chance of future relations with Putin). He is also smart and is putting the US in a difficult spot.